An Agreement in Lebanon, and the Beginning of the End for the Bush Doctrine?

Last night Lebanese officials from all parties, with the help of Qatari arbiters, accomplished what has typically been so fleeting in the Middle East- they reached an agreement. The 18 months of deadlock that began when Hizbullah withdrew its ministers from the cabinet and called for protests in downtown Beirut has ended. The opposition now has a vetoing third in the cabinet, the protesters are being called in, and Michel Suleiman will be elected president within the week. The fighting, for now, has ended. This has truly been a fortuitous development for Lebanon.

So what does this deal truly mean for the parties involved. Ultimately, it means that Hizbullah came out the winner of an 18 month arm wrestling match. When the dam broke two weeks ago, Hizbullah quickly took control, used restraint, and came out victorious. They received from the Doha deal everything they wanted. They got their vetoing third, which effectively allows them to prevent the cabinet from ever acting against the resistance. They kept their telecom and control of the airport intact- the proximate causes of the recent fighting. The presidential appointment is even in their favor. Though Suleiman had been put forth for some time by the government as a candidate, that was only after Hizbullah refused to approve their first choices. Suleiman had always been the favored compromise candidate of the opposition- their failure to agree on him previously was only an effort to prolong the deadlock until they were granted their vetoing third of the cabinet. The March 14 governing coalition walked away from the table with NOTHING... the deal was clearly a survival effort to keep them from falling from power.

The question lingering in my head, then, is why did the US let this happen. Before now, the US has told its allies in the March 14 group that it could not reach an agreement that gave Hizbullah more power. Obviously, if the foreign policy is a war on terror, then it fails when one of your close allies has a terrorist group as a major part of its government. The US told the March 14ers at Annapolis not to agree on a compromise candidate for the presidency. Was the failure of the pro-government militias in the recent fighting enough to convince the US that its fight in Lebanon had failed?

Or is something more sinister afoot? The agreement will most likely be interpreted in Washington as a major threat- another example of Iranian meddling and sponsorship of terror in the Middle East. Either March 14, for fear of losing all legitimacy, has abandoned the US stance and agreed to Doha unilaterally, or the US told them to do agree to provide a pretext for another Israeli attack on Hizbullah. Bush has already promised to provide aid to the Lebanese army to disarm Hizbullah (a task the Lebanese army has never seemed as excited to tackle has the US has). Will the US and Israel sit quietly while Hizbullah grows in influence and power in Lebanon?

On another front, it has been made known that Israel has been engaging in talks with Syria. This has been done against the will of the US, who has attempted to keep Syria diplomatically isolated until it abandons its support for Hizbullah and Hamas. This opening up between Israel and Syria represents, along with the Doha agreement, a death sentence for the war on terror. The stupid, explosively detrimental policy seems to be in its final throes. Will it go quietly in its sleep, or will it go viciously like a trapped animal? Will it end with a gentle taper in policy until Bush hands over the reigns, or will it end with a bang as US bombers pummel Iran? I think I can guess what each of our presidential hopefuls are wishing for.

Recent Escalation in Beirut

Since Thursday the ongoing political deadlock in Lebanon has escalated. After the March 14th government began shutting down the telecom system Hizbullah operates in south Lebanon Hizbullah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah accused the government of declaring war on the resistance. Hizbullah supporters and militias created roadblocks, burned tires, and shut down major parts of the city with protests. Fighting quickly broke out between pro-government militias and Hizbullah militias. Machine gun fire and rpg explosions filled Beirut in the worst internal violence since the civil war.

This new fighting, however, only really lasted a day. One day. That is how long it took for Hizbullah to take control of West Beirut. As soon as positions were occupied, Hizbullah handed them over to the Lebanese Army. The army, which acts largely independent of the governing party, is attempting to be neutral. Their actions, however, demonstrate that they are unwilling to oppose Hizbullah.

Still, Washington supports the Siniora government and condemns Hizbullah as a terrorist group. If this week's events show us anything, it is that Hizbullah is the most potent force in Lebanese politics. Lebanon's army would not dare confront them. Their popularity on the street is undeniable. Hizbullah will most likely hand back what they have taken, and demand greater political inclusion. What happened this week was all to say "Listen March 14, you cannot treat us as if we are not a significant representation of this country. We can take control of Lebanon at will." They are demanding respect.

Where does it go from here? The historical record indicates that whenever Hizbullah steps into a greater position of influence in Lebanon, Israeli retribution follows. The US would certainly encourage such a move- Lebanon falling into the hands of a US labelled terrorist organization reflects poorly on a foreign policy named "the War on Terror." Such a move would be disastrous. The reason Hizbullah can say that dismantling its telecom system is an act of war is because that very telecom system is what Hizbullah used to successfully stand up to an invading Israeli army in 2006, and every Lebanese person knows it. Hizbullah's consistent ability to resist Israel has been the backbone of its popular support. Another Israeli attack or invasion, which would likely fail like all those before it, would send Lebanon a clear message: you need Hizbullah. Despite this fact, the chances of such a thing happening are extremely likely. Buckle up Lebanon, the ride is just beginning.

For excellent analysis and discussion of the current situation in Lebanon, check out syriacomment.com.

The Parents and Children of Radical Islam

It is truly unbelievable how pervasive the debate concerning radical Islam has become. The trend I have noticed which arises so quickly and creates such unseen damage is the trend to associate all Muslims with the increasingly influential proponents of the confrontational, severe, authoritarian and often violent stream of Islam that exists throughout the Muslim world. It is this historically particular brand that is raising its head in Europe and threatening the very institutional traditions (like freedom of speech) that Westerners esteem above all else. While I agree this movement is on the offensive and shows no signs of retreat, I contest that the popular discussion on how to deal with it is grossly misguided.

This contempory political Islam is not the normal way Islam has been politicized throughout its history. The types of behavior that define it- suicide bombings, etc.- have only been around the last thirty years. Prior to that time, political Islam was primarily the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that generally opposed violence and sought to rejuvenate Islamic society via education and charity. No, today's Islamic radicals in Amsterdam, Madrid, Baghdad and Gaza are the children of a movement born not too long ago at all.

If one were to put a birthdate on today's radical Islam, it would be Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. For the first time, conservative Islamic leaders were not the tool of corrupt government. Instead, their Islamic fervor and rhetoric toppled the autocrat that had sought to dominate them by force. It was Khomeini's vision that inspired the Shiites of Lebanon to revolt against their Israeli occupiers in a resistance that would become Hizbullah. It was the collective successes in Iran and Lebanon that inspired the Brotherhood in Palestine to abandon their reform oriented vision in favor of a violent uprising. And al-Qaeda? Though the Sunni salafis call the Iranian Shiites heretics, there is no doubt that Iran's bold repudiation of its Western shackles played a formative role in sparking the imaginations of bin-Laden and Zawahiri.

If today's "terrorists" are the children of the Iranian revolution, then who are its parents? Clearly, its parents are the CIA agents who overthrew Iran's democratically legitimate leader, Mossadeq, and replaced him with a tyrant. They are the Western countries that would stop at nothing to get their hands on Iran's massive oil reserves. They are the Israeli policy makers that thought it was a great idea to invade Lebanon and Palestine and occupy them for decades. They are the think-tankers and yes-men who paved the way for a needless invasion and occupation of a large Arab country. Radical Islam is the bastard child of Western greed and manipulation.

Obama and the Middle East

It's funny how Clinton, McCain, and largely the media have simplified the Obama campaign to good speeches and far flung rhetoric. While I will say that good speeches are a welcome change (have you noticed presidents have become less and less quotable in recent decades, unless they are Clintonisms like "I didn't inhale", or Bushisms like "is our children learning"?) I have liked Obama since long before I ever heard him speak. I happened to miss his 2004 speech, but not too long after read a compelling newsweek article about him. I don't agree with him on every issue (obviously) but from the time I read that article until now I am willing to argue that Obama is the best candidate for the Middle East, and the US relationship to the region.

We can start with Iraq, but it doesn't end there. Of the remaining candidates, only Obama had the foresight to oppose the war. That tells us a lot about him. It speaks of his mentality- his convictions concerning the role the US should play in the world. In a recent debate, Obama actually said that the US cannot act like it exists in a higher plane than the rest of the world. Bush, McCain, and probably Hillary Clinton probably believe the US DOES exist in this higher plane, and if they thought otherwise, they would never dare to say it publicly.

Then, his stance on our enemies. Obama has the gumption to say, knowing that it is not a popular stance, that he would sit down and talk with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Raul Castro, and Assad. While Clinton has wavered on this issue, Obama has been clear that he wants to reinvent the perception of US diplomacy and the US presidency in a time where the image of both has been badly tarnished. This courage to talk to our enemies is the only way to bridge the often ideational, rather than substantial, divide between us.

I will say that I have been disappointed on his stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He has said, when questioned, that he is a stalwart friend of Israel- language that would never be used regarding any other country on the planet (a stalwart friend of Mexico? I doubt it). It shows that, like every other leading candidate, Obama has been forced to cater to powerful lobbyists concerning the issue. I am still waiting for the candidate that, while honoring the real concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians, claims to be a stalwart friend of justice. Perhaps politics isn't the realm where such figures thrive.

On the whole, however, I believe Obama is the only figure that can reinvent US foreign policy to become an agent of change in the ME.

Murder: Gaza and Jerusalem

Today eight Israelis were murdered in a place of Jewish learning. These are not soldiers- they are religious men, giving their lives to become learned in the holy scriptures of their ancestors. They were students, carrying books, probably heading home from class. They walked towards the door, stepping into the hallway just in time to see a Palestinian man pointing a gun at them. Then, death.
Shooting students in their seminary- is this a battle? Is this war?

Several hundred miles away, in Gaza, thousands of men, women, and children eek out an existence with a complete lack of basic commodities. They are a people who have NEVER known the feeling of having a country that they belong to. Neither did their parents or grandparents. They are the world's orphans- who sticks up for them? And they have put their trust in an organization who, rather than making political deals for personal gain, have promised to fight until they have a homeland. And while some actively fight the Israeli occupation, many do not. Yet they watch their children growing up in poverty with absolutely no hope of a future with dignity outside of resistance. These children, upon whom all their hopes and dreams rest, are often the ones killed when Israeli reprisal bombings indiscriminately destroy their concrete flats.
Launching missiles into residential areas, starving a civilian population, keeping a nation prisoner for over forty years- is this a more just war than tonight's murders?

I am so saddened by the reality of this cycle. Both sides have swallowed a simple lie- "the only way my enemy will know I am serious is if I shed their blood. If I show unrelenting force in a way that disturbs the psyche and erodes the general sense of decency within society, then they will know I am serious." And it is assumed that progress can only be made once their enemies take them seriously.

But the opposite has happened. Far from taking each other seriously, both sides view the other as animals- violent, maniacal monsters who have no intention of keeping their word. But that, in fact, is not far from the truth. For the deepest expression of being human is to forgive- to withold violence in the face of violence. Any animal can and will kill when threatened; we were made to be different. This cycle has turned Palestinian men who are no different then their American counterparts into murderers who ravage seminaries- and it has turned Israeli policymakers, enlightened and educated as they claim to be, into the bombers of villages on whose hands rest the blood of Palestinian children who dream only of playing with toys and seeing their fathers come home from work.

In the following days, the situation between Israel and Gaza will likely escalate. It is a sober thing to know that many people walking about today may very well be dead by the end of the week. These are not issues of politics- they are life and death.

Who will stand with courage to begin to slow this cycle, that one day it may even be reversed?

Our Great Failure

I am a follower of Christ. I believe he is the most valuable, beautiful, worthy thing in all existence. I met Christ and grew to love him through the stream of the church we know as Evangelical Christianity. I still consider myself an evangelical, I suppose, in the sense that I believe in the scriptures (though I am not dogmatic about peripheral issues) and the power of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. I love many evangelicals, and owe so much to those who have gone before me.

But I must say that western evangelicalism has failed. We have forsaken our calling. Like so many religious movements we who were a living body, vibrant and full of grace and life, have ossified into empty ruins. We have become the Pharisees of the 21st century. We are rich, we build beautiful buildings, and we distance ourselves from the world by a wall of moral authoritarianism. But behind the wall, we too are whitewashed tombs. We have become so different from our Christ. We exploit, he gave everything he had. We are unfaithful, he was faithful unto death. We declare "culture wars", he was a "friend of sinners." We pursue political power, he came to serve and not be served.
And then there is the war on terror. Fear and violence to counter fear and violence. It does not surprise me that a nation would answer violence with violence, but its the church who has beat the drums of war the loudest and the longest. That is what grieves me. We who have nothing to fear from death and who have been mandated to love our enemies, WE have cheered as the bombs dropped and the tanks rolled. Were we so blind that we thought our kingdom was of this world? Or that our enemies were of flesh and blood?
Oh Son of God, have mercy on our shallow, worldly spirituality. Free us from fear, from hypocrisy, from materialism, from apathy. Shake us with the compassion of God, and let us walk again in true fellowship with our crucified lord.

And the Embers Burn...

Again, Lebanon hangs in the balance. Since February of 2005, Lebanon has been in a whirlwind of activity, and in the midst of it all, searching to define itself. After Hariri's assassination, Lebanese nationalism was the cry of the day, and the most popular expression of that nationalism was an outcry against foreign meddling- specifically Syrian. The Summer 06 war changed everything, and Lebanese nationalism for many evolved. The events of July and August made many Lebanese come to the conviction that Syrian meddling was better than Israeli murdering, and those once brave nationalists who represented Lebanese freedom from Syria, the March 14th group led by Siniora and Hariri Jr., came to be viewed as the tools of a greater threat to Lebanese national interest.

So now Lebanon burns. Tires burn in roadblocks across Beirut. Grenades and automatic rifles in Mazraa and Basta, in Tripoli and among warring Christian groups in the moutains. And the youth burn with a directionless rage as they throw rocks at soldiers, rip cars apart and beat each other with clubs. They have been told one too many times that things were going to change, and now, like their fathers before them, they are turning to violence as the only accessible comfort.

Lebanon's two faces are now set on a desperate collision course. Both sides promise not to yield. Conflict is the only possible outcome. Christian opposition leader and Hizbullah ally Michel Aoun has promised "many surprises" in the days to come, and while Siniora has vowed that the government will not give in to sedition, Nasrallah has claimed that the opposition will bring down the government by the end of the weekend. The Lebanese nationalism that during the trumpeted "Cedar Revolution" promised to unify Lebanon has now fueled its unravelling, simply because the identity of this nationalism has never been agreed upon. To half of the country, Lebanese nationalism means economic prosperity, peace with Israel, open relations with the West and freedom from Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah militias. To the other half, it means simply resistance to Israel and freedom from western manipulations. Like oil and water, these two versions of Lebanon will not mix... indeed little common ground exists at all.

How did it come to this? How did a country that so deeply longed to leave its war torn history behind and build a new, thriving economy revert to its old self-destructive tendencies? Well it had plenty of help. The US, by sticking to its dogmatic line of being the opponents of "terrorism", chose this summer to unconditionally back the Israel pummeling of Lebanon. By doing so, they allowed their enemy, Hizbullah, to become the hero of Lebanon and betrayed the March 14th government, making them look like fools for ever trusting the west. The US humiliated Siniora, making him look like an impotent fool unable to defend his country while Hizbullah fighters gave Israel a bloody nose and immortalized their status as the protectors of Lebanon. If the US had only said the word and demanded an immediate Israeli cease fire, perhaps the gears could have been reversed. Instead, Bush handed Nasrallah the keys to Lebanon's destiny.

And Israel... by "proving their point" to Lebanon they sowed the ideological seeds of a deeper resistance to Israel across the country. Now, the quasi-friendly Siniora government is threatened to be replaced by a Hizbullah led coalition, and Israel will be forced to deal with a fundamentalist neighbor on their north who has pledged their destruction. Interestingly enough, the longer Israel continues their current policies towards Arabs, the more power radical anti-Israeli leaders are able to amass. Secular Fatah is replaced with fanatical Hamas, cosmopolitan Lebanese elites with Hizbullah cronies. What next? What will come of Jordan, or Egypt? If the Baath regime in Syria falls, as the US policy clearly pushes for, what will replace it?

The streets of Beirut are strangely quiet tonight. A curfew has ensured a unnatural vacuum. But the tranquility will only last for the night, and when Beirut awakens, what course will she pursue? What choice is left?